CC'ing the dev list (please read below for context):
So...
It seems like we should first put things into:
www.scipy.org/svn/scipy/trunk/src/lib/
scipy
scipy_core
(allowing one to do this: svn co https://svn.scipy.org/svn/scipy/trunk/
...and get what's needed for a build)
Next, get a release out of SciPy 0.3.3 using the existing relative
locations of scipy, scipy_core, et al.
Then, work toward the grand unification of scipy and Numeric3 (which is
actually scipy_base). Constructing a world which will support a binary
build of a stand_alone scipy_core (which will have scipy_base, f2py,
scipy_distutils and scipy_test (or some approximation of those), and a
binary build of the scipy "whole enchilada"--with proper consideration
of the potential difficulties Pearu points out below.
Any input/objections?
Regards,
Travis
Joe Cooper wrote:
>pearu at cens.ioc.ee wrote:
>>> For installing Numeric3 and scipy we can use two separate setup.py files
>> for each task but for checking out Numeric3 only (there might be users
>> who are not interested in scipy but Numeric3 alone) from the above tree
>> could be a problem.
>>> You can checkout any path within a subversion repository, so putting
> everything into one repository is entirely sane, if everything is
> closely related. Some tools (trac, specifically) are designed around
> a "one project, one repository" model, and so it does not deal with
> many different packages in the same repository with anything
> approaching sanity. This has shaped our thinking on the enthought
> tree to some degree (not a large degree, but a little bit).
>> I expect we will want to begin using trac on scipy, as well, and so it
> may be worth considering the limitations of trac.
>>>> I'd also like to leave behind any deprecated libraries in the "old
>>> CVS" rather than cluttering the new repository.
>>>>>>>> I agree. I think only scipy, scipy_core, ipython(?) from the "old CVS"
>> need to be converted to svn. All other modules seem obsolute.
>>> ipython was the first to move to subversion. Fernando has been
> happily subverting for a couple of months. I'll remove all of the
> obsoletes.
>>>> Please let me know if your thoughts. I wanted to do any wholesale
>>> changes now rather than later, since we're setting up the repository
>>> anyway. If we should do this post 3.3 let me know how to structure
>>> things to get us to that point.
>>>>>>>> If we want to get 3.3 out as soon as possible then we should use the CVS
>> tree. It may take time to get Numeric3-scipy and restructured
>> svn-scipy to stable enough for the release.
>>> There is no need to restructure the Subversion repo before a release,
> or we can branch before the reorg, or the person doing the reorg can
> do it in a working copy. Also, the subversion tree mimics the CVS
> tree to a large degree, so there's probably no reason not to roll the
> release from the SVN repo. I'd be shocked if you can't check out the
> trunk of scipy_core and scipy and have them act exactly the same as
> the CVS versions.
>> Just a reminder about some of the reasons for migrating to subversion:
>> Branching is cheap and safe.
> Wholesale moves of directories and everything in them is cheap and safe.
> Everything (almost) that one can do to a subversion repository can be
> done in a working copy, so everything (almost) is cheap and safe.
>> I know everyone who has worked with CVS has some old "Egads, don't
> move things around...we don't know what could happen!" notions that
> are hard to overcome, because I still have those feelings too
> sometimes. So, it's worth mentioning that those fears are unjustified
> with Subversion.
--
........................
Travis N. Vaught
CEO
Enthought, Inc.
http://www.enthought.com
........................